- From: Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:15:40 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > Christof Hoeke wrote: >> >> hello, >> a comment to the last call of the CSS Namespace spec but actually I >> always wondered a bit if it could be explained a bit more clearly what >> "no namespace" means? >> >> --- another thing first: >> >> While writing this comment I originally had the following thought: >> >> In XML no namespace means >> 1. elements with no prefix and no default namespace in the >> enclosing document/element >> 2. elements resetting a default namespace defined in the >> enclosing document/element with:: >> <x xmlns="">... >> >> Using this simple logic it would be allowed to define:: >> >> @namespace empty ""; >> >> to select element x from above with:: >> >> empty|x >> >> But in XML the empty string is not allowed when defining a namespace >> with a prefix (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#iri-use), only when >> defining the default namespace (if I understand >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#defaulting right). >> >> So the above should not be valid in CSS either I guess? >> The syntax does not prevent this though and no comment is there either >> (maybe I overlooked it?). > > Added to the issues list. Anne or I will get back to you on this one. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-namespace/issues-2 > >> Anyway, I also think the term "no namespace" should be more explicit. >> In an very old draft >> (http://www.w3.org/1999/06/25/WD-css3-namespace-19990625/#tag-selector) >> I found the sentence: >> >> The namespace component may be left empty to indicate that the >> selector is only to match elements with no declared namespace >> >> Maybe the single word "declared" could be re-added to >> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-namespace/#css-qnames to make this clearer? > > I borrowed some wording from Namespaces in XML and clarified it as > > The prefix of a qualified name may be omitted to indicate that the name > belongs to no namespace, i.e. that the namespace name part of the > expanded > name has no value. > > Does that work for you? It is much clearer now, just one small point. I am not sure if it would clarify it a bit more if one could add something like (I guess there is a better wording though): ... that the namespace name part of the expanded name has no value or is the empty string. Somehow if I read "no value" I think it has to be ``null`` or ``None`` but not "". thanks christof
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 19:16:18 UTC